Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

[Bubba_Switzler]

Those on the progressive left demand respect for the homosexual community, but would just as soon see the rights of a Christian trampled under foot. As a small business owner, I should be able to fire my employees (depending on my state) for finding them offensive, just like A&E did. I doubt I’d get a lot of support around here if I did.

Well, don’t try firing a baker for baking a same-sex wedding cake, that’s for sure.

 

[polki]

Regardless, you don’t even have to show that they’re damaging the reputation of the company. A&E didn’t claim that; they just said they found what he said offensive and suspended him. As long as everything more business owner in America can suspend or fire an employee they find offensive, I don’t see a problem with it.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

A&E allowed the GQ interview, knowing this man’s outspoken religious beliefs. A&E should have told GQ that religious questions were not allowed, if they were so concerned that maybe “someone” would be “offended”. They didn’t, so now they’re doing damage control by suspending the guy because someone complained. They’re punishing him for their own mistake.

And for all those critics in the media who think that “people have a right to believe what they want but they shouldn’t express it publicly”… well then the reporter shouldn’t have asked the question, or published it. Apparently it’s OK for someone to publish your religious views in order to sell magazines, but you shouldn’t express that view in public. Double standard.

 

[Gorgias]

Yeah, you get it, too. The implication seems to be that homosexuality is the “mother of all sins,” and therefore the worst one, the “unforgivable” one.

Two thoughts: first off, there’s no indication in that article you quote of any implication of the ‘mother of all sins’, let alone the suggestion that it’s the ‘unforgivable sin.’ But, if you’re trying to put words in his mouth and thus defame the man, good job!

Second: I assume you’re talking about his first quote: “Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

Umm… you realize, don’t you, that he’s simply paraphrasing Scripture, don’t you? Take a look at Romans 1:26ff… “God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

But hey… don’t let that get in the way of your lynching…

 

[Gorgias]

Sadly, I also fear you’re right.

To others here, just out of curiosity, were the Bible to offer a description of Jews or blacks as described in this way (“full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil”), would you feel bound to champion the same view? (I’m going to politely ask that someone answer the question as stated rather than explaining that being Jewish or black is not prohibited by God or described as evil in the Bible – or that being Jewish or black isn’t “unnatural” – thereby not answering the question at all.)

Grace,

‘Jews’ and ‘blacks’ are people. The description in Romans is of people *in the context of the sinful acts that they committed. So, your question is either poorly constructed – since it conflates ‘types of people’ with ‘types of sinful actions’ – or it’s deliberately attempting to muddy the waters.

We cannot answer the question as asked, since it asks something nonsensical – that God might look down on someone for who they are (as opposed to for what they do).*

 

[gracepoole]

Grace,

‘Jews’ and ‘blacks’ are people. The description in Romans is of people *in the context of the sinful acts that they committed. So, your question is either poorly constructed – since it conflates ‘types of people’ with ‘types of sinful actions’ – or it’s deliberately attempting to muddy the waters.

We cannot answer the question as asked, since it asks something nonsensical – that God might look down on someone for who they are (as opposed to for what they do).*

Thanks for giving me the answer I specifically asked not to receive and in general dodging the question. But I get it – that’s the safest way to respond. Anyone else want to give it a go?

 

[Dawnia]

Grace,

‘Jews’ and ‘blacks’ are people. The description in Romans is of people *in the context of the sinful acts that they committed. So, your question is either poorly constructed – since it conflates ‘types of people’ with ‘types of sinful actions’ – or it’s deliberately attempting to muddy the waters.

We cannot answer the question as asked, since it asks something nonsensical – that God might look down on someone for who they are (as opposed to for what they do).*

Exactly. St. Paul was not describing homosexuals. He was describing people who turn away from God. That the very act of turning away from God leads them to sinful acts of which homosexual behavior was one of many sins that manifest.

 

[pnewton]

Sadly, I also fear you’re right.

To others here, just out of curiosity, were the Bible to offer a description of Jews or blacks as described in this way (“full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil”), would you feel bound to champion the same view?

The answer to your question, as stated, is “no”.

However, the question, as stated is irrelevant. We can ask stupid rhetorical question with obvious answers, but if they do not apply, then no discussion is taken place. Even your requirement that no one change the question or address the logical deficiencies in the question show that discussion is not what you desire.

 

[irishpatrick]

Sadly, I also fear you’re right.

To others here, just out of curiosity, were the Bible to offer a description of Jews or blacks as described in this way (“full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil”), would you feel bound to champion the same view?

You want people to answer an unanswerable question…why are you doing that?

 

[gracepoole]

The answer to your question, as stated, is “no”.

However, the question, as stated is irrelevant. We can ask stupid rhetorical question with obvious answers, but if they do not apply, then no discussion is taken place. Even your requirement that no one change the question or address the logical deficiencies in the question show that discussion is not what you desire.

Scripture has been used to justify many things throughout Judeo-Christian history – slavery, for example. Yet I assume no one here thinks slavery is morally acceptable. In fact, I’d go so far as to wager that nearly all think slavery is indefensible and view those who use the Bible to justify its practice as horribly misguided. We’d all likely dismantle Biblical arguments in favor of human trafficking, though it’s certain that multiple passages can be used to approve of this practice. Or perhaps we might think of anti-Judaism, which is still being justified through use of scripture. I asked the question because I’m never certain here if there is anything that people would not – could not – accept or reject if a Biblical passage proscribed or prohibited that thing. And I often have the very real feeling that were this dialogue taking place 150 years ago, a good number of things would be being justified through the use of scripture.

In general, use of scripture is really a worrisome practice because it’s often divorced from any genuine understanding of the religious system that understands the passage being used. There’s no conversation about Christian salvation in Robertson’s comments, for instance – that alone should give any Catholic pause. There’s also zero concept of Christian love or forgiveness.

 

[pnewton]

In general, use of scripture is really a worrisome practice because it’s often divorced from any genuine understanding of the religious system that understands the passage being used. There’s no conversation about Christian salvation in Robertson’s comments, for instance – that alone should give any Catholic pause. There’s also zero concept of Christian love or forgiveness.

That is why there are tens of thousands of denominations within the Christian faith. Yes, his use of Scripture should give a Catholic pause, as should any use of Scripture that seems, … quirky.

A Catholic should be well-versed in Scripture, but should also have his catechism close by. We should not be afraid of Scripture, but stand ready to approach any discussion with the mind of the Church. As to what the duck guy said, yes, a Catholic should not take it and defend what he said, some of which is true, some of which is not. I believe the real issue is his right to say it without losing his job. If a person can speak in favor of homosexuality without losing their job, then another should be able to speak against it. For me, this action should set a precedent that allows the firing of anyone for their public moral stance, or public immoral stance. Since I know this will no happen, I consider this firing to be hypocritical.

 

[gracepoole]

That is why there are tens of thousands of denominations within the Christian faith. Yes, his use of Scripture should give a Catholic pause, as should any use of Scripture that seems, … quirky.

A Catholic should be well-versed in Scripture, but should also have his catechism close by. We should not be afraid of Scripture, but stand ready to approach any discussion with the mind of the Church. As to what the duck guy said, yes, a Catholic should not take it and defend what he said, some of which is true, some of which is not. I believe the real issue is his right to say it without losing his job. If a person can speak in favor of homosexuality without losing their job, then another should be able to speak against it. For me, this action should set a precedent that allows the firing of anyone for their public moral stance, or public immoral stance. Since I know this will no happen, I consider this firing to be hypocritical.

What if he hadn’t been suspended but the general public’s support plummeted leading to the show’s eventual cancellation?

 

[pnewton]

What if he hadn’t been suspended but the general public’s support plummeted leading to the show’s eventual cancellation?

Then that would have been a good reason to cancel a show.

 

[_Abyssinia]

What if he hadn’t been suspended but the general public’s support plummeted leading to the show’s eventual cancellation?

A&E is having a marathon of Duck Dynasty episodes. I assume that all of these, if not multiple episodes, have Phil Robertson in.

http://michellemalkinblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/dynasty1.jpg

michellemalkin.com/2013/12/19/ae-so-offended-by-duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-that-theyre-continuing-marathon-airings

 

[DoGodsBidding]

A&E is having a marathon of Duck Dynasty episodes. I assume that all of these, if not multiple episodes, have Phil Robertson in.

michellemalkin.com/2013/12/19/ae-so-offended-by-duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-that-theyre-continuing-marathon-airings

I noticed that too. Very hypocritical of them.

DGB

 

[Gorgias]

Scripture has been used to justify many things throughout Judeo-Christian history – slavery, for example. Yet I assume no one here thinks slavery is morally acceptable. In fact, I’d go so far as to wager that nearly all think slavery is indefensible and view those who use the Bible to justify its practice as horribly misguided.

OK… so that would be a mis-use of Scripture. (In fact, God’s command to the Israelites in the Promised Land, time and time again, was that they were never to forget when they, themselves, were slaves in Egypt.) So, it’s easy enough to rebut those kinds of statements with the appropriate passages from Scripture.

Yet, Paul says what Robertson says he does. The Bible speaks against a variety of sinful behaviors, and homosexual behavior is one of them. Unless you’re saying that the Bible actually does come down on the side of slavery – and that we’ve ‘transcended’ this teaching over time – such that eventually, we’ll also give up on the notion of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, then your point just doesn’t work! On one hand, there’s something you claim that the Bible doesn’t say but which had been misused, and on the other hand, there’s something that the Bible does say and which is not being quoted out of context. Your logic just isn’t sound in the construction of this analogy…

I asked the question because I’m never certain here if there is anything that people would not – could not – accept or reject if a Biblical passage proscribed or prohibited that thing. And I often have the very real feeling that were this dialogue taking place 150 years ago, a good number of things would be being justified through the use of scripture.

So the question remains: do you think that the Scripture verses quoted in this context – 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 – proscribe homosexual behavior? Or do you think that this proscription is simply an example of incorrectly justifying this stand through an incorrect use of Scripture?

There’s no conversation about Christian salvation in Robertson’s comments, for instance

Umm… really? You’ve read the article, and you’re making this claim? Let’s put the lie to this claim right now, then:

“You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

“So you and your woman: Are y’all Bible people?”

Not really, I’m sorry to say.

“If you simply put your faith in Jesus coming down in flesh, through a human being, God becoming flesh living on the earth, dying on the cross for the sins of the world, being buried, and being raised from the dead—yours and mine and everybody else’s problems will be solved. And the next time we see you, we will say: ‘You are now a brother. Our brother.’

So… you were saying…? On at least three occasions that actually made it into the article, Robertson discusses salvation and God’s mercy – and he invites the interviewer to consider coming to faith himself! So – your assertions really just fall on their face. What it comes down to, when the dust settles, is that you just don’t like that he stated the Christian moral teaching on homosexual behavior. That’s all. Right?

 

[Dawnia]

I noticed that too. Very hypocritical of them.

DGB

The new season that starts in January will also feature Phil. Someone from A&E hinted that they are hoping this will all blow over by the time filming is supposed to start up again.

 

[gracepoole]

OK… so that would be a mis-use of Scripture. (In fact, God’s command to the Israelites in the Promised Land, time and time again, was that they were never to forget when they, themselves, were slaves in Egypt.) So, it’s easy enough to rebut those kinds of statements with the appropriate passages from Scripture.

Um, that’s sort of the point. What was once viewed as completely legitimate when supported by scripture now seems abhorrent. It’s exceptionally easy to say, “Well, of course *that *example is ludicrous. But this, this example is spot on.” The Bible can definitely be used to defend slavery, my friend. We’ve simply come to recognize that it’s abhorrent nonetheless. I could easily point to the fact that Leviticus prohibits and condones many things we find ridiculous today – and someone would argue that homosexuality is somehow different than these things (just as previously, someone would have argued that slavery was somehow different). I could easily point to the fact that Christ never spoke about homosexuality – and someone would argue that His reference to “man and woman” means He did prohibit it (again, just as previously, someone would have argued that the Bible does justify slavery). 100, 150, 200 years from now, one can only guess what will be justified or condemned using scripture as support.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Um, that’s sort of the point. What was once viewed as completely legitimate when supported by scripture now seems abhorrent. It’s exceptionally easy to say, “Well, of course *that *example is ludicrous. But this, this example is spot on.” The Bible can definitely be used to defend slavery, my friend. We’ve simply come to recognize that it’s abhorrent nonetheless. I could easily point to the fact that Leviticus prohibits and condones many things we find ridiculous today – and someone would argue that homosexuality is somehow different than these things (just as previously, someone would have argued that slavery was somehow different). I could easily point to the fact that Christ never spoke about homosexuality – and someone would argue that His reference to “man and woman” means He did prohibit it (again, just as previously, someone would have argued that the Bible does justify slavery). 100, 150, 200 years from now, one can only guess what will be justified or condemned using scripture as support.

You have to define slavery because I do not see how the Bible could be used to defend slavery as in chattel slavery, the type that occured in America and was part of the transatlantic slave trade. Chattel slavery didn’t give slaves many rights. I have read that chattel slaves did not have the right to get married or have laws protecting them from harm from slavemasters, and there did not exist a law that slaves would be freed after a set anount of time, or that a slavemaster would be given the death penalty if he killed his slave etc.

Jesus said in John 5:46-47

For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?

There are condemnations of homosexuality in Mosaic law.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

archive.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

 

[gracepoole]

You have to define slavery because I do not see how the Bible could be used to defend slavery as in chattel slavery, the type that occured in America and was part of the transatlantic slave trade. Chattel slavery didn’t give slaves many rights. I have read that chattel slaves did not have the right to get married or have laws protecting them from harm from slavemasters, and there did not exist a law that slaves would be freed after a set anount of time, or that a slavemaster would be given the death penalty if he killed his slave etc.

This is a really good case-in-point. While you may find Biblical justifications for the type of slavery practiced here in the U.S. problematic, those in favor of the practice 150 years ago did not – they (like those arguing against homosexuality based on scripture today) were convinced of the righteousness of their arguments.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Getting back to the topic.
I went ahead and gave the show a second look today.
And…it ain’t bad.
I’m still no fan of “reality tv”, but it has a charm that is hard not enjoy.
Or maybe I’ve lived in WV too long…

I want to thank GLAAD for introducing me to this show.